|
 Who
Governs the Internet?
By Thomas M. Pitegoff
Govern the Internet? That
sounds like a contradiction in terms. The Internet evokes the ideas of freedom and
lack of control. At the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which took
place in November 2005 in Tunis, delegates from 174 countries affirmed the importance of
the Internet and the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge (www.itu.int/wsis).
Yet Internet governance,
specifically resentment over perceived U.S. control of the Internet, was the big issue
looming in Tunis. Fortunately, the delegates in Tunis made no fundamental change
in the way the Internet is governed. But the high level of the challenge to the current
system calls for some explanation of what that system is.
Icann
In fact, the U.S. does control the Internet
to some extent. Historically, the Internet was created in the U.S. It was developed
originally as the “Arpanet” in the 1960s and 1970s at universities with funding
from the Pentagon. With the creation of the World Wide Web in the 1990s, the Internet
quickly grew to become essential to the daily functioning of businesses, governments and
organizations of all types and in all countries.
Today, a basic mechanism of the World Wide
Web is managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), a nonprofit
corporation based in Marina del Rey, California (www.icann.org).
Icann was established in 1998 to manage the domain name system (DNS), which assigns network
names (like pitlaw.com and westchester.org) and assures that each name has a unique address.
Icann was formed by the Department of Commerce
pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm).
In forming Icann, the Clinton administration sought to privatize the management of the domain
name system “in a manner that increases competition and facilitates international participation
in its management.” The Department of Commerce stated its intention that Icann
would establish a process to transition to independent management “based on the principles
of stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and representation.”
Domain Name Arbitration
Icann has been tremendously effective in
achieving its goals. One small example of Icann’s work is something that I
know well. For some time now, I have had the privilege of acting as a domain name
arbitrator under a dispute resolution system created by Icann.
When someone registers
an Internet domain name that is the same, or almost the same, as your company’s name
or trademark, you have the right to challenge that domain name through a relatively speedy
and inexpensive online arbitration procedure. To prevail, you must demonstrate three
things: (i) the other party’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to a trademark or service mark in which your company has rights; (ii) the other party has
no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the other party’s
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. If you prevail, the
other party’s domain name registration will either be canceled or transferred to
your company.
This arbitration mechanism, called the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), was created by Icann in 1999. Complaints
under the UDRP may be submitted to any approved dispute-resolution service provider. These
providers include the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and CPR – International
Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (www.cpradr.org),
among others. I am a domain name arbitrator for CPR.
Political Realities
Back to politics. In June 2005, the
Bush administration made it clear that the U.S. does not intend to relinquish this authority. In
a “statement of principles,” the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration announced that the United States had the right to maintain oversight of
Icann indefinitely. (www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm)
This decision surprised many in the international community, where it was widely understood
that the U.S. control was never intended to be permanent.
Two months later, the Bush administration
actually did influence in an Icann domain name decision. In August 2005, the Department
of Commerce removed its support for the creation of a new .xxx domain name, saying that
it received thousands of letters of complaint from conservative Christian groups and others. This
put a stop to the establishment of the .xxx domain, which upset many governments.
In theory, the U.S. Department of Commerce
could invalidate a country domain, thereby disabling all e-mail and websites in that country. While
such an action would be drastic and is highly unlikely, it nevertheless illustrates the
point that one government can exert political influence over the Internet.
What are the alternatives to U.S. control? One
is to give control to an international body administered by the U.N., like the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), which administers and regulates international telephone
dialing prefixes.
The U.S. is fearful of any change that might
give other governments more power over the Internet.
The fear is that any such change would reinforce the ability of countries like China and
Iran to filter and censor their networks. China, for example, does its best to suppress
websites that advocate democracy.
The U.S. views any move toward Internet
governance by an international organization as “top down”
control. The U.S. argues that any such change would politicize the Internet, add bureaucracy
and hinder its innovative nature, which U.S. control is preserving.
On November 15, 2005, representatives in
Tunis reached an accord that leaves the supervision of domain names unchanged. At
the same time, the representatives agreed to establish a new international forum intended
to give governments a stronger voice in Internet policy issues. The new group, the
Internet Governance Forum, will begin operations in the early months of 2006. The
Governance Forum will have no power to oversee Icann or its activities.
While Icann already had a Government Advisory
Committee (http://gac.icann.org/web/index.shtml),
the Governance Forum will presumably play an active role in dealing with Internet issues
unrelated to the role of Icann. Such issues include how to make the Internet available
to more of the world’s less affluent populations. Other issues include cyber-crime,
cyber-terrorism, spam and online security.
U.S. control of the Internet has been fabulously
successful so far. Hopefully, the U.S. government will continue to allow Icann to
run itself independently and will take no further actions that will evoke resentment abroad.
Thomas M. Pitegoff is a former World Trade
Council Board Member. He is the founder of Pitegoff Law Office, White Plains, New
York, www.pitlaw.com. He
can be reached at 914-681-0100 or pitegoff@pitlaw.com.
Top
SME
China IPR Advisory Program
The U.S. Department
of Commerce, in cooperation with the American Bar Association, the National Association
of Manufacturers, and the American Chamber of Commerce in China, has established a new
China Intellectual Property Rights Advisory Program. Through this program, American small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can request a free, one-hour consultation with a
volunteer attorney experienced in both IPR issues and the Chinese market to learn how
to protect and enforce intellectual property rights (IPR), such as trademarks, patents
or copyrights, in China. The SME China IPR Advisory Program seeks to:
· Help
American businesses understand the steps they must take to develop an intellectua property
protection strategy for the Chinese market;
· Help
U.S. companies facing China-related IPR disputes pursue resolution to their problems;
and
· Reinforce
the message that it is essential for U.S. companies to take action to protect and enforce
their IPR in accordance with China’s civil, administrative and criminal laws,
and that failing to act can have devastating consequences for future business.
To
request a free consultation with a volunteer attorney or obtain additional information
regarding this program, please visit the American Bar Association website at www.abanet.org/intlaw/china_program2.html.
Top
The World At Our Doorstep. Local companies
can expand their markets via Multilateral Agency Procurement
by Charles Radier
In the pursuit of international trade opportunities
many New York businesses ignore a market entry point at their front door. Alternatively,
thousands of foreign and domestic out of state companies actively pursue the attention
of one of the globe’s major purchaser of goods and services; envious of the natural
advantage afforded to firms located in the Hudson Valley. The market at our doorstep is
situated at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City via the United Nations Procurement
System.
In 2004 the UN expended $6.3 billion in
procuring goods and services. Traditionally,
approximately 60% of purchases have been for goods and the balance for services. Among
the most commonly procured goods are computer equipment, electronic equipment, medical
supplies and pharmaceuticals. For services, the primary purchases include software, engineering
consultancies, printing and publishing services
While there are more than 30 member organs
and specialized agencies that comprise the UN system, the bulk of purchases emanate from
5 to 10 agencies like the UN Procurement Services, the World Food Program (WFP), the UN
Development Program (UNDP), UN Children’s Funds (UNICEF) and the Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO). The goods and services procured by the various organizations are mostly
for internal administrative and program requirements, with some major exemptions. UNDP,
in addition to procuring for Headquarter entities, also supplies peacekeeping missions
around the world.
Historically, much of the UN's procurement
has been done from Headquarters, but field offices increasingly have the authority to control
procurement. This is in response to the position of developing countries that centering
procurement activities at Headquarters acts to preclude potential suppliers in less developed
economies. In fact, the recommendations of a Joint Inspection Unit report in 2004 on the “Procurement
Practices Within the United Nations”
advises as a part of its reform recommendations an emphasis on electronic procurement (e-procurement)
methods and technical assistance in support of capacity-building for public procurement agencies
in developing countries.
For many people any knowledge of the UN
procurement system is related to stories of corruption. The Iraq Food for Oil scandal marks
one of a number of cases where extraordinary sums of money and supplies have been diverted
for the illegal gain of unintended beneficiaries. Questionable practices facilitated by
the UN’s procurement procedures have been an ongoing concern of the US Government,
as evidenced by a report from the US General Accounting Office in 1999 to the US House
of Representatives Committee on International Relations. The report, entitled “Progress
of Procurement Reforms,” indicated several shortcomings that if corrected, one could
argue, might have averted several notable cases of the corrupt use of UN resources. A perennial
charge by US administrators is that despite the US being the largest contributor to the
UN system, American personnel are underrepresented in the general staff and markedly in
the procurement arms of agencies. UN officials have in turn argued that they have undertaken
reform under the guidance of the General Assembly and they challenge the United State’s
assessment of the shortcomings of the system by pointing out that American suppliers consistently
rank in the top ten suppliers list. In fact, in 2004 with the top ten suppliers winning
46.6% of all the awards US based suppliers were successful in winning to the tune 9.9%
of all awards. The next highest supplier was Belgium at 4.9%. An interesting note was the
success of American institutions of higher learning as active respondents to tenders; often,
related to the delivery of specialized services like Information Technology Training, Democratization
of Political Processes, Transparency of Public Operations etc. Also as surprising as Belgium’s
placement at number two, was the absence of Japan and Germany in the top ten suppliers.
Given that many of the UN organizations
operate under their own mandate and procurement requirements, how does a company pursue
the procurement market of the UN? A prospective supplier is best advised to look at the
publication “The General Business Guide” which describes the various
procurement procedures and provides detailed contact information for all UN organizations.
The guide can be obtained at the web site www.un.org/Depts/ptd.
Some agencies require suppliers to register
their company and the goods and/or services it can provide. Several agencies have developed
the United Nations Global Maketplace, formerly known as the United Nations Common Supply
Database (UNCSD) where companies can register their interests and capabilities. Agencies
in turn, use this tool when looking for potential suppliers, though registration does not
guarantee that a supplier will be notified of upcoming procurement opportunities or invited
to bid. The registration site is at www.uncsd.org.
In order to remain aware of upcoming bids
a company should subscribe to the publication UN Business Development . This publication
comes out in print 24 times a year and is available on the Internet at www.devbusiness.com.
Pursuing procurement opportunities through
any multilateral organization like the UN requires an equal an amount of commitment of
a company’s resources as any other market. The opportunity for businesses located
in the Hudson Valley boils down to an old and rudimentary function of location; the potential
of developing personal relationships with procurement officers. For small companies their
best opportunity to bid on a contract is in the early stages of project development. The
reality is that firms that do have relationships can influence the terms of reference and
equipment specifications of procurement tenders. Despite
all the obstacles of international procurement practices, ignoring the potential benefits
of procurement opportunities would be a mistake similar to a company with global competitors
placing their reliance on a single market. Companies should therefore consider the procurement
avenue as part of their overall export strategy.
Charles Radier is a Director of Business
Development and International Trade for Empire State Development. ESD is New York State’s
lead Economic Development agency in the attraction of new business investment and provision
of assistance to existing New York companies for the purpose of retention and expansion
of jobs.
Top
THE
GLOBAL LOGISTICS CHALLENGE
By Peter Canellis
Clients are demanding creative solutions
from their logistics services providers to reduce costs in the Value Chain.
As the world economy
goes through another round of belt tightening, the principles of ‘lean thinking’,
originally developed to drive the operation of Toyota’s production system, have become
prominent across many industries. Shippers are pressuring their materials suppliers,
internal personnel, and logistics services providers to remove cost from the value chain.
There
are basically two alternatives that confront suppliers and service providers in this environment: cut
prices or help to cut waste. Logistics services providers can assist their clients
to do this in five areas:
1.
Transportation
Providers
can work with their clients to establish least cost routings, evaluate merge-in-transit
opportunities, and select transport service levels in connection with postponement strategies
that can save money in the physical movement of freight.
2.
Cargo Handling
Evaluating
package designs and pallet or container loadings can expose inefficiencies that inflate
cost. Also, most clients have either too much inventory or inventory in the wrong
locations, or both. This is yet another area with great potential for savings. In
many cases, a service provider can run a client’s distribution center operations
more efficiently and cost-effectively than they can by retaining the function ‘in
house’.
3.
Export / Import Compliance
Opportunities
may exist for duty reductions, fine reductions, drawback, and import entry consolidations.
4.
Risk Management
Cargo
insurance rates may be excessive, or claims and damage history may reveal structural problems
in freight handling.
5.
Product Sourcing
Service
providers can help clients to perform ‘make versus buy’ analyses, and to identify
alternative suppliers and supplier locations where such changes may have a significant
effect on total value chain costs.
A
cost reduction program must be tailored for each client. The starting point is a
high level analysis of critical financial ratios and trends. Next, business processes
and related performance indicators are reviewed to identify and prioritize potential improvements. A
pilot program is then initiated to validate the recommended improvements. Based on
the results of the pilot program, the improvements are either fully implemented or modified
as required.
Using
this approach, logistics providers can respond to their clients’ needs in new and
constructive ways that will help them to meet the global logistics challenge.
Peter
Canellis works for Expeditors International, a full service global logistics company, www.expeditors.com.
Top
Asia
Real Estate Show
The American Real Estate
And Services event in Hong Kong, September 27-29, 2006, is an exceptional opportunity to
promote American commercial, industrial and residential real estate to Asian, especially
mainland Chinese and Hong Kong, investors and purchasers. This event is for U.S.-based
real estate owners and developers, AND U.S.-based providers of real estate-related
services, such as real estate brokers; mortgage bankers; business, title and property insurers;
real estate lawyers; tax advisors; environmental and industrial site selection consultants;
property surveyors and appraisers; foreign trade zone and industrial park operators; local
economic development authorities; world trade centers and architecture, design, engineering
and construction firms.
For more information on this exciting opportunity, visit http://www.buyusa.gov/hongkong/en/areas_main.html or
call Amy Allen at 914-948-1168
Top
|
